That's interesting

Yep I noticed that too, if you take the figures, ignore the obvious facts, change them, interprete them to suit your own argument they then actually fit with that argument. Amazing really who would have thought it? 😯

joemarshall – Member

Is that pro rata, or just a meaningless statement you made up?

No it's absolute numbers. No one has an accurate count of how many times people go swimming outside for obvious reasons – although some estimates are surprisingly high

Absolute Numbers ?

Drac – Member
Berm Bandits School Days

LOL you could well be right Drac, but its that long ago I can't remember 😉

However, I suspect you would be surprised about how wrong you can be all in one post, and I think you may also have misunderstood where I'm coming from. My issue is with thoughtless and selfish stupidity **** up the use of a resource for everyone else, regretably it happens all too often, and the people least effected are the weekend heroes who go there just once or very occasionally, ignore the warnings, create an issue and then leave the aftermath for everyone else.

Most recent in my experience being the example given above, when my local reservoir came close to a total shut down to leisure users, and Thetford Forest where stupid and similar ignorance has led to some of the best trails in the forest being permanently closed (i.e. a harvester run along the entire length of trails). So it would be true to say that the "I can do whatever I like whenever I like on other peoples property" kind of attitude does indeed boil my piss…… for purely selfish reasons of course

Actually I believe that more people die in supervised swimming pools than die swimming in open water too

Is that pro rata, or just a meaningless statement you made up?

My local reservoir has signs everywhere warning of the dangers, still doesn't stop the local **** from doing as described above when the weather gets hot.

Many trees and buildings etc that were in place when it was flooded are still there. Strangely, they get to be nearer the surface the warmer the weather gets.
There is an underground connection to a local river where they draw water from in times of drought. There are currents and suctions created by that process, which strangely tends to happen most the warmer the weather gets.
As the water level drops the various pollutants and bio hazards become concentrated into much smaller areas, which strangely tends to happen most the warmer the weather gets.

Recently there was talk of closing all leisure activities there due to a couple of deaths of numbskulls who ignored all the warnings.

Why?

It worked on the basis that they figured that because certain sports are allowed in a restricted cleared area, people presume that the signs are to stop them entering the water in places where access is free, rather than for genuine safety reasons. i.e. they're doing it over there, so it must be safe…..

Got Karndean in my kitchen and two bathrooms.

Regularly clean it by mopping over, as recommended, so getting it wet is totally not an issue.

The karndean website is excellent in helping you pick a colour scheme and you can order samples online, which show up very quickly. All of mine has had the thin strips inbetween the tiles (on the recommendation of the installer. kitchens been down about 7 or 8 years and still looks great, and definately not busy, but then we had black tiles with black strips, guess if we'd chosen pink or flourescent green it might have looked a bastard. There is a technical reason for using them, but frankly I have no idea what it is, because thats why I employed a guy to both advise me and to install it, because he knows what hes at and I don't.

So why the bile? I don't get it.

There was a clip on Look East the local news programme of a guy with a helmet cam getting knocked over by an inattentive motorist the other day. There was nothing reported other than dozens of loonies texting and emailng about insurance tax and red lights until the following evening when hundreds of cyclist had responded and pointed out that this was a bit unreasonable in the circumstances.

So whats that about then? I'm a nice guy, and I only piss in my lycra when its really inconvenient to stop and do it. Why don't motorists like me??

Jumping Red Lights, No Insurance, Don't pay tax by any chance??

Personally, I think the fact that you want to own a gun, should by that very token exclude you from having one.

Written to my Mp to ask for clarification

Do you reckon he's spoken to his boss before giving this interview, or do you reckon Call me Dave is sitting in the new kitchen with his head in his hands?

Any bets on how long it is before one of his boys is in trouble for spanking/cottaging/playing away?

joolsburger – Member
Complete non story there are more pressing things to be concerned about. It is not for the BBC to dictate who appears on a television programme any more than it is a requirement for the government to supply who the BBC wants.

I think you might be a bit unfair there. The beeb is perfectly entitled to invite whoever they like, and it is most certainly for them to make that decision. On the other hand those invitees are perfectly entitled to refuse the invite.

What actually happened though is that the Tories tried to dictate the makeup of the panel. They are clearly NOT entitled to do that.

Well said alexxx.

You have actually touched on my reasons for feeling strongly on this general area. Basically I lost a nephew a couple of years back in a Motorbike accident. He was seriously into his motorbikes and riding. We'd often discussed the issues and his response was in the "thats how I want to go" area. (Given that I stopped biking a while back when I realsied that I wasn't actually immortal!)

He got his wish, it was very sudden and he probably didn't know too much about it. However, its the aftermath for the people who he left behind thats the real kicker. I now understand what my family went through when I was similarly selfish about my own safety. So I do take reasonable steps to mitigate the risks in what I do. You obviously can't take all risk out and perhaps its not even desirable to do that, but simple practical things…..well why not? Certainly I'd never seek to justify my selfishness with pointless and facile arguments about whether those steps were effective or not.

Anyway, very happy that TJ's ok and that being the fella he is he's taken it all in good part.

I think the wqord "cheapo" may have been relevant 😉

Which takes me back to a post on a previous thread which quoted the old Bell Helmets ad "If you've got a $5 head get a $5 helmet"

that Campbell AHole came out of it not looking all that good

Care to exapnd on that at all? Didn't see the show myself, but I've never seen Campbell perform badly to camera yet. What did he do?

Trying to think of an appropriate phrase with foot, shoot and yourself in it.

Its pathetic frankly, smacking of "its my ball and I'm going home".

😀 <fails to stifle a snigger>

Equality for all thats my motto!

Both can be found in equal measure between Sh1t and Syphilis in the dictionary. 😉

Perk up fella, look at it this way, without lifes downs we would not truly appreciate the ups.

For my money the issue is the same as it is with fly tippers, whom I also have a considerable distaste for. This issue is much like the helmet one, it crops up as regularly as clockwork, it polarises opinion, and creates heated arguments…….. not to mention the fact that I'm right about this too!

Personally I'm happy for travellers to have precisely the same rights and repsonsibilities that I have. Only thing is that I would insist on both being applied in equal measure. Simple and fair IMHO 😉

Fair point slowjo, but then is it a bridge too far to say rules not applying might be a two way street if you are correct?

…. 4,

9,

8,

7,

6,

5,

LOL at ned.

I think that's it, actually. Can we stop now?

Take your own advice brother. 😉

That the same cyclehelmets.org you described as

cyclehelmets.org is a useful resource but it clearly requires a healthy scepticism.

🙂 Cheap shot I appreciate, but couldn't resist it.

Actually don't think I've ever disagreed with that TJ. My beef is this nonsense regarding helmets don't reduce the risk of head damage, cause injuries etc etc. Not for me to tell you what to do, except insomuch as not really wanting to ride with helmetless folks.

I would say here and now though, that I've never once foreseen any of the numerous stacks that I've had over 40 years or so of cycling. So on balance I wear a lid every time I ride a bike. Been knocked down on the road 4 times, off-road I've broken numerous ribs, collar bones on several occasions, broken my wrist once and assorted other less serious events, but never suffered any serious head injury despite writing off 3 helmets to date.

If quoting a 1960's helmet advert to illustrate a point is mentioning cost then you've got me. The point being that I buy the best helmet I can for the purpose I want it for. Sorry if that wasn't clear for you.

and unless you wear the highest rated MX lid available, you have used you r own ability, zen like or not, to foresee the types of falls you're likely to encounter and chosen your lid accordingly. Same as everyone else, even those whove chosen a not-a-helmet helmet.

And your point is ?

BB… so you do make an assessment of the risk then, it just happens to be different from other peoples assessment. Life would be so dull if we all agreed though.

Now, that wasn't so difficult was it?

Did I ever say otherwise? All I said was I envy the zenlike ability to foresee a stack. Which in fact goes back to my previous point that nobody goes out on a ride having decided that today is the day for a stack. Its an unforeseen event.

I haven't made a point yet, just asked a question.

I think you did, it went like this

I never mentioned cost.

and I asked

And your point is ?

Simply because I didn't understand why you would make that statement, or indeed what its relevance to the discussion was.

Read the post.

No problem, BB, thanks for calling me daft, then agreeing with me.

I didn't, I called your argument daft. Perfectly possible for a very sensible person to deploy a daft argument

yes, I do get the best piece of equipment I can manage for what I do

so you sacrifice protection for weight and venting where appropriate? xc ride, xc helmet? DH day, DH helmet? MX day, MX helmet?

Different circumstances and issues, for example speed, and besides in my risk assessment I include heat exhaustion so venting seems sensible to me.

I never mentioned cost.

And your point is ?

Helmet evangelists: do you wear the best possible head protection available – i.e. full face motorcycle helmets?

If you don’t, why don't you?

Is it because you’ve used the principles of risk assessment to decide that the level of protection is inappropriate to the level of risk from cycling?

Did you conclude that this extra protection was worth sacrificing for the benefits of more venting and lighter weight

Daft argument frankly ned. Different circumstances and issues, for example speed, and besides in my risk assessment I include heat exhaustion so venting seems sensible to me. However to quote the old Bell Helmet ad if you are saying $5 head? get a $5 dollar helmet, then yes, I do get the best piece of equipment I can manage for what I do. Thanks for asking.

Bermbandit – my point is that they use research from such people as the TRL – not that TRL use it.

Apologies, misunderstood your point, and it does say on the website that they seek to advise and inform official bodies.

Regardless, having read through it, I do feel that there is a strong anti helmet bias, which is not representative of my admittedly anecdotal experience. For example, I do personally know of people who have died or been seriously injured cycling whilst not wearing a helmet. I know of none who have had the same whilst wearing one.

As previously stated, its impossible to collate or research why an outcome has not occurred, so no bad outcome = no research, which is why the supporting evidence for helmet wear is not easy to provide. It is however perfectly possible, if anyone bothers to collate information on outcomes when things do happen. I happen to know about what has happened in my locality, and generally, head ground interface without protection has a high bad outcome potential.

Personally, I do beleive that you will find that cycle accidents are not well researched post event, and statistically it seems to get washed over.

Bermbandit – you should look at the cyclemhelmets stuff – such twaddle as research for the TRL. Still – it doesn't agree with your prejudices so it must be twaddle.

I have, and I'd be much more impressed to see unbiased research which doesn't pander to your or their predjudices. Can't see your problem with that statement. TRL may well use it, but that won't be in isolation and it will be part of a properly structured and balanced view.

😕 :-)LOL at crikey..

More a case of eyeballs vibrating so much you only see a blur, hanging on for grim death and lots of **** **** feckity **** **** going on inside said bell helmet. Used to love it, was also cycle speedway team mate to Simon Wigg, but regretably unable to rise to the same heights at the big boys stuff though.

BB… excellent description of a motorcycle helmet. I'm guessing a cut and paste? ;o)

😯 Am I so obviously that shallow?

Well, I guess we can agree they are superficially similar though

I'll take that as a yes then? ….. blimey one thread, two scores….whatever next common sense on STW? ;o)

Kenda Small Block 8

Erm… you have actually handled a motorcycle helmet I presume… and compared the weight to that of a bike helmet?

Erm, yes, I used to race Speedway (both cycle and motor versions) amongst other things.

So what exactly is the technology that is shared between the two?

A motorcycle helmet has two major parts: the outer shell and the energy-absorbing inner liner. The inner lining is made of expanded polystyrene or EPS, the same stuff used in beer coolers, foam coffee cups, and packing material. Outer shells come in two basic flavors: a resin/fiber composite, such as fiberglass, carbon fiber and Kevlar, or a molded thermoplastic such as ABS or polycarbonate, the same basic stuff used in face shields and F-16 canopies.

The shell is there for a number of reasons. First, it's supposed to protect against pointy things trying to penetrate the EPS—though that almost never happens in a real accident. Second, the shell protects against abrasion, which is a good thing when you're sliding into the chicane at Daytona. Third, it gives Troy Lee a nice, smooth surface to paint dragons on. Riders—and helmet marketers—pay a lot of attention to the outer shell and its material. But the part of the helmet that absorbs most of the energy in a crash is actually the inner liner.

When the helmet hits the road or a curb, the outer shell stops instantly. Inside, your head keeps going until it collides with the liner. When this happens, the liner's job is to bring the head to a gentle stop—if you want your brain to keep working like it does now, that is.

The great thing about EPS is that as it crushes, it absorbs lots of energy at a predictable rate. It doesn't store energy and rebound like a spring, which would be a bad thing because your head would bounce back up, shaking your brain not just once, but twice. EPS actually absorbs the kinetic energy of your moving head, creating a very small amount of heat as the foam collapses.

And just as a little thought… would you make a Sikh with a turban wear a helmet for cycling? :o)

already answered as below:-

Face it, the choice is yours, and I don't think anyone would dispute your right to make it, but there is no reasoned argument other than free choice. So don't try to justify it with utter crap.

Light reading; http://cyclehelmets.org/

LOL (knew that was coming)

This "evidence" works on the same level as citing the BNP as experts on immigration. i.e. its a pressure group with a one sided view trying to prove their bias. By that simple fact they have self evidently written off pretty much everything they say as being fundamentally flawed.

So try again Crikey. TJ's been quoting that twaddle for years. Its still twaddle regardless of how often its referred to.

Now then tell me about this ability to pre-select the time place, speed and severity of your offs. Obviously you can do this, as you claim to wear a helmet when its necessary and not when it isn't.

Personally I don't give a toss whether you wear one or not. Its absolutely your call, however please keep away from me when you're riding, as I don't want responsibility for you, and preferably try not to ride where the land owners are concerned about litigation due to the severity of the injuries on their land. I don't need my riding opportunities to become even more restricted than they are now.

Oh yeah, and one other thing, regarding my earlier comments regarding wearing a helmet on a motorcycle. The technology for the constuction of cycle helmets is the same technology as used for M/C helmets, and isn't simply an inch of polystyrene as you claim. So obviously you would be against the wearing of M/c helmets for the same reasons you would be anti cycle ones…… right?

Face it, the choice is yours, and I don't think anyone would dispute your right to make it, but there is no reasoned argument other than free choice. So don't try to justify it with utter crap.

And your point is TJ? Its a fair and valid point. Not no 1 in the argument, but fair and valid.

Cycle helmets don't

Says whom?…. evidence please?

so why is there no definitive evidence that they work?

As I've said to TJ many times previously. You cannot argue a negative. i.e. prove to me that by not wearing a helmet that you would have been injured. How about you prove to me that they don't work? Surely you must have a great long list of people who have been killed or seriously injured by a head injury whilst wearing one, that data should be very easy to compile.

…and, think about the lack of litigation in the most litigious nation on earth with regard to injuries suffered by helmet wearing cyclists

Utter cods! Go sell that one to the FC who are currently busily trying to protect themselves from litigation left right and centre.

Like I said, anecdotally, I was talking to my local forest ranger at the weekend…..

and because I do so regularly I don't need evidence, I see it contantly. However, I am willing to be swayed by the deployment of yours/TJ's. Persuade me of the folly of my ways, feel free, but please try to avoid self evidently ridiculous statements like the above. Its not really worth the discussion when you do that.

Simple question for TJ and the like

Given your views why wear a helmet at all?

Comments such as these are self evidently contradictory to your views so why do it?

1) Helmet free ride on saturday – a deliberately chosen route of minimal gnar and speed
2) If I want to try something that I think is a bit dodgy I will wear my full face and knee pads
3) I ditched mine altogether yesterday, I went out at a stupid time, the trails were extra busy with walkers etc, so I just had a nice pootle instead of a mad thrash
4) I put it back on for most descents, honestly on the climbs it wasn't worth it but thanks so much for your concern.

I am wholly impressed by the superior zenlike ability to decide when you are going to fall, and most of all your ability to argue how ineffectual they are but then how you decide you must wear them when doing something "dangerous". Presumably you deploy the same arguments regarding PPE at work, the wearing of seatbelts, or helmets on motorbikes, or driving on the wrong side of the road, ad infinitum, rejecting all of those as unnecessary infringements of you civil liberties as well?

Was chatting to the ranger at my local forest at the weekend on this very subject.

During the last week he's had to deal with a sans helmet over the bars gashed head to the bone incident, and another where a guy has hit his head so hard that the resultant swelling could lead to the loss of an eye.

The simple fact is that no one gets up in the morning and decides that todays the day to have a severe stack, any more than you can decide to get up and not have one.

Simple principle is that wearing a helmet will not kill you (regardless of TJ's arguments to the contrary), not wearing one might. No brainer IMHO.